(Barbarian, noting that Darwin predicted what we have learned about the appendix)
Darwin noted that vestigial organs can often evolve a different function. As you see, Darwin had it right. Look up his book and go to the section on "rudimentary organs." You'll be surprised.
We call them "vestigial" to day. And as you just saw, he got it exactly right. The appendix in humans no longer has the original function of digesting plant matter, but it has at least two others that are not found in the structure in other animals.
Darwin thought God created the first living things.
We'll just have to disagree about that. No matter how He did it, He created them.
Beagle. And he records in
The Voyage of the Beagle, that the officers of the ship were amused at his Anglican orthodoxy, so you have that wrong, too.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.
Much later, the death of a much-loved daughter seems to have caused him to be an agnostic.
You've been misled about that, too. If he had never discovered the process of evolution by natural selection, he'd still be a much-respected scientist, for his work on the classification and natural history of barnacles, and for discovering the mechanism for formation of coral atolls.
He was a most careful researcher, gathering copious notes and evidence, before addressing a problem. It was his careful and meticulous technique that earned him the esteem of his fellow scientists. If you had bothered to read his works, you would find data in numbing detail.
You have that wrong, too. He was primarily an experimentalist, happiest when in the field gathering data. His experiments and studies of earthworms and their effects on soil showed that even late in life, he was ever the scientist.
The Origin of Species, mentions countless examples of his experiments with living things. You really need to find out things for yourself instead of falling for such foolish notions being peddled by creationist websites. Would you like a list from a single chapter of his book?
In his day, many, many English biologists were ministers of the church. It was called "natural theology." From Medieval times, there was a tradition of scientific inquiry by priests.
Wrong again...
Lyell. In this text Lyell argued against the cataclysmic geology that Darwin had been taught by his geology lecturers, in favour of a view that the earth is shaped by the slow processes which can be observed today. This view of geology, where small changes are summed up over long time periods is called gradualism. Seeing the world from this perspective would be one of Darwin’s most important lessons.
During the voyage, Darwin observed many of these processes for himself. He saw the effects of gradual uplifting of land in St. Jago. And in South America he saw a volcanic eruption at Mount Osorno, and lived through an earthquake in Valdivia. He made extensive notes on his observations of weathering, crystallisation of lava, measurements of raised beaches and many other sights which caught his interest.
His keen eye and rigorous note taking allowed him to formulate his geological theories. His first was on how coral reefs formed. Previously many geologists thought coral reefs grew on underwater volcanoes. Darwin didn’t see the logic in this, instead he applied what he had read and seen of gradual subsidence of rock to formulate a new theory. He suggested that corals grow around islands, but over long periods of time the sea floor can subside. The coral would continue to grow whereas the island would be washed away, so leaving the coral reef alone to be observed now. Darwin’s theory was instantly accepted by the geological community. In 1952 surveys by the US Atomic Energy Commission in Pacific coral reefs proved Darwin’s theory was correct.
Darwin’s second theory was also successful. He formulated a theory to explain how volcanic islands are formed. That is, volcanoes are usually formed when lava repeatedly erupts so layers of volcanic rock are laid down successively building up the cone. At the time, many geologists believed a volcano grew up because of pressure from below and the crater then subsided. Darwin’s idea was right. Darwin almost struck on a much bigger idea, his observations led him to believe the earth’s crust was moving, rising in some places and subsiding in others. A few more pieces of evidence or leaps of logic would have led him to the theory of plate tectonics which was proposed and accepted in the 1960s.
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=c3
As you see, the "pre-determined position" was catastrophism. And as he observed and experimented, he gradually realized that this was incorrect. His findings remain unchallenged in geology.
That came later. The evidence came first, as you just learned.
See above. His discoveries are still valid and subsequent investigation has only confirmed them, and explained the forces behind them.
That's quite dishonest of you. That's not what he said at all. Shame on you.
As you should know, we now have numerous examples of complex Precambrian life in fossils, validating Darwin's prediction:
The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
Charles Darwin,
The Origin of Species, Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
In fact, Darwin noted that a well-adapted species in an unchanging environment should be kept from changing by natural selection. And that prediction has also been validated.
However, the supposed immutability of species has been shown to be false by among other things, direct observation of speciation.
But of course, no one can produce a testable definition of "kind", which is a religious belief, not a scientific term.
Many dishonest creationists have quote-mined that one, cutting off Darwin's explanations on why this would appear so. You're the last of a long line of them.
Many of his predictions on that point have been validated also. There is a huge list of transitional fossils found since I began studying biology. Darwin's discussion on the imperfection of the fossil record turns out to be spot on.
See above. Since his time transitionals for many, many taxa have been found. We're far from done; every month significant new discoveries are made. But let's see how far. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can show you a transitional. There are still some yet to be found, so you might get lucky. Will you try?
Well, if you're up to it, we can test that assumption. Do you have enough faith in your doctrines to test them?
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould,
Evolution as Fact and Theory
Let's see what an honest creationist says:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28(between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29
(between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30(between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —
of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33the tetrapod series,34,35the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37
(for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapusprimate series, 38 and the hominid series.39
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-92
Turns out that DNA analysis confirms the tree first discovered by Linnaeus to a high degree of precision. What your article is referring to is lateral gene transfer which is rare in eukaryotes, but common in prokaryotes. And that part of the tree (unknown to Darwin and Linnaeus) has a lot of cross-branches.
6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin supposed that God just created the first organisms. Why do you think that's wrong?
Show us that. Sounds intriguing. I'm guessing there's a good reason you didn't do it.
7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection
The evidence shows that it changed ungulates to whales. Even your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise acknowledges this.
Barry Hall's bacteria surprised him by evolving a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Sound pretty good to me.
See above. You've been blind-side by reality again.
Every scientist is wrong about things. Problem for you, is that you didn't find the things Darwin was wrong about. Would you like to learn about those?
It might just be good for your soul to accept the truth about Darwin.